I've often heard/read people (Hawking, Dawkins etc) making out that Physics or Physicalism proves that there is no God, or no need for one.
Yet it seems to me that it's an assumption that is smuggled in with the very notion of what Physicalism means. To then go on to say that it proves such a thing is to mistake consequences for assumptions.
Is this correct?
In my understanding, substance is that which is self-subsistent (it requires no cause beyond its own self). Physicalists are starting from the assumption that the universe is a substance when looked at the right way (though they may not use this language). Whereas non-Physicalists do not regard the universe as a substance, and identify it with Brahman, God or Allah (which I note simply means the-One).
One could go on arguing that Physicalism allows one to predict the motion of stars and quantum particles. An Islamic Scholar would say that everything (apart from humans who have free will) follows Allah's will, his law. Physicists only discovered the form of one of his laws.